Update | September 12: Added better examples of dichotomies re. Lefort.
I’ve engaged myself recently with some books on ideology. It’s fascinating stuff, if complex for a neophyte such as myself. My readings have ranged so far from introduction to a brief history of the subject. Lately I’ve tested the deeper philosophical waters. (I’ve listed the books I’ve read and will reference here.)
Like any rich idea (“journalism,” say), the definition of “ideology” is contested. Most of my reading, in fact, has been the product of people arguing why ideology should be considered x and not y.
As interesting as the reading is, I wanted to connect it to my field of study. So I thought of a question: Could journalism be an ideology?
To examine that question we need to take a look at some possible definitions of ideology. After offering these definitions, I’ll try to see how well they align to the practice of journalism. I’ll be simplifying the ideas involved, of course, but I hope they’re fruitful in some small way.
Journalism as ideology: version 1
Seliger argues for an “inclusive” conception of ideology (as opposed to “exclusive”). One of the central tenets of such a position is that “ideology” is a neutral term, not one specifically designed to describe only some sets of beliefs (see next section). It can connote any system of relatively coherent beliefs, including ideas about how the world should be or could be and suggestions for how that state could be achieved.
An ideology, under Seliger, includes sets of attitudes and behavior, of which journalism and journalists hold pretty similar versions. For example, most journalists agree about the need for and benefit of government transparency. They agree that a marketplace of ideas has value in a democracy and that more public debate is preferable to less. For that matter, they agree that democracy has more value than other forms of government.
Journalists also share a general set of behavior in acting on these attitudes — talking with public officials, soliciting opinion from members of the public, “gotcha” questioning, etc. Journalism could be ideological in this sense, even while acknowledging differences of opinion in defining the specifics of concepts like “transparency” or in the ethics of various reporting techniques.
However, Seliger’s definition is broader than just attitudes and behavior. “Ideology is linked to politics no less than all politics are linked to ideology,” he writes. Politics involves more than just ideas — it involves implementing those ideas. People who subscribe to an ideology need a plan for collecting taxes or maintaining a military force.
I’m guessing few journalists would know the first thing about this technical side to ideology. While much of what journalists do may be considered “political” under some academic definitions, I doubt that Seliger’s use of “political” means the same thing.
Journalism as ideology: version 2
In Studies in the Theory of Ideology, John B. Thompson criticizes Seliger’s form of ideology. According to Thompson’s conception, ideology is concerned not only with sets of beliefs but in the specific ideas about the world that develop from and accept asymmetrical power relationships and material conditions among different classes or groups. These relationships range from workers and owners to even parents and children, to savage and civilized, or mad and normal.
Examining the way(s) reporters and journalists contribute to the domination of certain groups and/or dominance of others is really interesting. One of my favorite posts from the last year examined just this sort of process. [1] But I want to try a different approach here.
Thompson summarizes the work of theorist Claude Lefort on “invisible ideology.” One element of “invisible ideology” is an endless, unfulfilling cycle of consumption by people captivated by novel products that, in time, become less novel. Once the product has lost its luster, consumers move along to the next shiny object.
Lefort argues the process is “invisible” because, unlike past systems of totalitarianism, there is no singular voices ordering us to “buy.” We simply figure out the process on our own. Lefort argues this cycle preserves relationships between dominators (who are selling) and dominated (who are buying).
OK, what’s the relationship to journalism?
In a word, advertising. Lefort has a special place in ideological hell reserved for media that deliver the messages of product peddlers who consume themselves into subservience.
News media have, of course, has depended on ads for quite some time. Journalists hence face a contradiction — and not just the conflict of interest between “truth-telling” and not offending the advertisers who fund the paychecks. That conflict can at least be navigated. Instead, the contradiction is between journalism’s stated goals of aiding self-determination and deliberation and the inability to ever pursue them.
For, in Lefort’s mind, self-determination is impossible under the cycle involved in “invisible ideology.” The journalist who displays ads is crippling the efficacy of his or her work before it even begins.
Journalism has an ideological function under this second definition, then, though the result is not as pretty as under Seliger.
Closing
Admittedly, this post was as much to help me solidify these concepts as it was to spark discussion. But I hope the ideas were stimulating. I’d love to hear your thoughts about them in the comments.
The books
The introduction: Political Ideologies: An Introduction, by Andrew Heywood
The history: Ideology, by David McLellan
The deep end: Ideology and Politics, by Martin Seliger, and Studies in the Theory of Ideology, by John B. Thompson.
Notes
1. Jay Rosen’s Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press described a theory of how reporters can, over time, come to identify more with the interests of those they cover than they can with readers or the public interest at large. (Return to post)